My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-14-1986 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1986
>
07-14-1986 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/6/2026 2:03:15 PM
Creation date
1/6/2026 1:54:23 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
373
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Zoning Administrator Mabusth suggested that the deck be <br />included in the request in order to avoid applicant <br />having to come back for another request requiring <br />another fee. <br />Mr. Prochnow agreed with this suggestion. He noted that <br />he did the hardcover calculations which he considered <br />"generous" and felt he could add a deck and stay within <br />the 25% hardcover allowance. He also noted that he had <br />a letter from a neighbor approving his proposal. <br />No one was present from the public regarding this matter <br />and the public hearing was closed. <br />It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by McDonald, <br />to recommend approval of the variance as proposed upon <br />staff recommendation wi°:.h the inclusion of a deck not to <br />exceed the all .-A 25% hardcover in the 75-250' area and <br />that no addit al structure be placed above or beyond <br />proposed deck. Applicant was inf.;rmed that the variance <br />was valid for one year only. Motion, Ayes 7, Nays 0. <br />#1035 ROBERT KOEHNEN <br />537 HANLON AVENUE <br />VARIANCE <br />PUBLIC HEARING 8:20 - 8:27 <br />The Affidavit of Publication a,id Certificate of Mailing <br />was noted. <br />Bob Koehnen was present for this matter. <br />Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron expalined the <br />request for a variance and conditional use permit to <br />construct a 1000 s.f. detached storage building/garage. <br />lie stated that the issue is if this is defined as a <br />"through" lot, then the variances and conditional use <br />permit are necessary; if it is not a "through" lot, and <br />the lot line at the alley is considered a rear lot line, <br />then the variances are not necessary. He stated that <br />this right-of-way appears to be the primary access for <br />the house to the south which would indicate it was a <br />street according to the zoning codes definition of <br />"street" and "alley". However, the right-of-way is less <br />than 50' which indicates it is an alley not a street. He <br />noted that it is the opinion of the City's legal staff <br />and the City Administrator that this is an alley and <br />should be considered the rear lot line. <br />Planning Commission concurred with staff's <br />interpretation. <br />No one was present from the public regarding this matter <br />and the public hearing was closed. <br />N <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.